181–190 of 236 posts
I don't think many of you read the article... the Flo app is the one in the wrong here, not meta. The app people were sending user data to meta with no restrictions on its use. Despite however the court ruled.
Flo is wrong for using an online database for personal data.
Meta is wrong for facilitating an online database for personal data.
They're both morally and ethically wrong.
Along a similar vein, I cannot believe after the stunts LinkedIn pulled, that they're even allowed on app stores at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it easier for the prosecution to make the jury think Facebook is guilty or for Facebook to make the jury think they are not? I don’t see why one would be easier, except if the jury would be prejudiced against Facebook already. Or is it just luck who the jury sides with?
I mean it totally depends what your views on democracy are. Juries are one of the few, likely only, practices taken from Ancient Athenian democracy which was truly led by the people. The fact that juries still work this way is a testament to the practice. With this in mind, I personally believe groups will always come to better conclusions than individuals. Being tried by 12 instead of 1 means more diversity of thoug…
It's very rare to see any privacy related news without Meta being involved in the story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only the first part of the story, though. Facebook isn't guilty because Flo sent medical data through their SDK. If they were just storing it or operating on it for Flo, then the case probably would have ended differently. Facebook is guilty because they turned around and used the medical data themselves to advertise without checking if it was legal to do so. They knew, or should have known, that they needed t…
>Facebook is guilty because they turned around and used the medical data themselves to advertise without checking if it was legal to do so. What exactly did this entail? I haven't read all the court documents, but at least in the initial/amended complaint the plaintiffs didn't make this argument, probably because it's totally irrelevant to the charge of whether they "intentionally eavesdropped" or not. Either they we…
You know exactly what it would look like. It would look like Facebook being legally responsible for using the data they get. If they are too big to do that or are getting too much data to do that, the answer isn't to let them off the hook. Also, lets not pretend Facebook doesn't have a 15 year history of actively misusing data. This is not a one off event.
As much as I don't like facebook as a company, I think the jury reached the wrong decision here. If you read the complaint[1], "eavesdropped on and/or recorded their conversations by using an electronic device" basically amounted to "flo using facebook's sdk and sending custom events to it" (page 12, point 49). I agree that flo should be raked over the coals for sending this information to facebook in the first place…
That's only the first part of the story, though. Facebook isn't guilty because Flo sent medical data through their SDK. If they were just storing it or operating on it for Flo, then the case probably would have ended differently. Facebook is guilty because they turned around and used the medical data themselves to advertise without checking if it was legal to do so. They knew, or should have known, that they needed t…
5 years ago I was researching the iOS app ecosystem. As part of that exercise I was looking at the potential revenue figures for some free apps. One developer had a free app to track some child health data. It was long time ago so I don't remember the exact data being collected. But when asked about the economics of his free app, the developer felt confident about a big pay day. As per him the app's worth was in the…
I don't understand why anyone would let these psychopathic corporations have any of their personal or health data. Why would you use an app that tracked health data, or use a wearable device from any of these companies that did that. You have to assume, based on their past behavior, that they are logging every detail and it's going to be sold and saved in perpetuity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only the first part of the story, though. Facebook isn't guilty because Flo sent medical data through their SDK. If they were just storing it or operating on it for Flo, then the case probably would have ended differently. Facebook is guilty because they turned around and used the medical data themselves to advertise without checking if it was legal to do so. They knew, or should have known, that they needed t…
I don't like to defend facebook either but where does this end? Does google need to verify each email it sends in case it contains something illegal? Or AWS before you store something in a publicly accessible S3 bucket?
Cambridge Analytica was entirely a third party using "Click here to log in via Facebook and share your contacts" via FB's OpenGraph API.
Everyone in their mind is sure that it was Facebook just giving away all user details and that's what the scandal was about but if you look at the details the company was using the Facebook OpenGraph API and users were blindly hitting 'share', including all contact details (allowing them to do targeted political campaigning) when using the Cambridge Analytica quiz apps. Facebooks fault was allowing Cambridge Analytica permission to that API (although at the time they granted pretty much anyone access to it since they figured users would read the popups).
Now you might say "a login popup that confirms you wish to share data with a third party is not enough" and that's fair. Although that pretty much describes every OAuth flow out there really. Also think about it from the perspective of any app that has a reasonable reason to share a contacts list. Perhaps you wish to make an open source calendar and have a share calendar flow? Well there's precedent that you're liable if someone misuses that API.
We all hate big tech. So do juries. We'll jump at the chance to find them guilty and no one else in tech will complain. But if we think about it for even a second quite often these precedents are terrible and stifling to everyone in tech.
As much as I don't like facebook as a company, I think the jury reached the wrong decision here. If you read the complaint[1], "eavesdropped on and/or recorded their conversations by using an electronic device" basically amounted to "flo using facebook's sdk and sending custom events to it" (page 12, point 49). I agree that flo should be raked over the coals for sending this information to facebook in the first place…
I would say you have a responsibility to ensure you are getting legal data. you don't buy stolen things. That is meta has a reponsibility to ensure that they are not partnering with crooks. Flo gets the largest blame but meta needs to show they did their part to ensure this didn't happen. (I would not call terms of use enough unless they can show they make you understand it)
At one point I was getting a strangers fertility app updates - didn't know her name, but I could tell you where she was in her cycle.
I've also had NHS records sent to me, again entirely unsolicited, although that had enough I could find who it was meant for and inform them of the data breach.
I'm no fan of facebook, but I'm not sure you can criminalise receiving data, you can't control what others send you.